It should be known that God sent our Prophet Muhammad to
us, in order to call us to salvation and bliss. He revealed to him His
noble book in the clear Arabic language. He told us in it about the
(religious) obligations that would enable us to attain (salvation and
bliss). This process included and necessitated references to God's names
and attributes, in order to make us acquainted with His essence. (It
also included and necessitated) references to the spirit attaching
itself to us, and to the revelation and the angels constituting the
connection between God and His messengers who were sent to us. The Day
of Resurrection and its warning signs have been mentioned to us (in the
Qur'an), but the exact time when any of these things is to take place is
not indicated. Also, at the beginning of certain surahs, the noble Qur'an
contains, distributed (in various places, combinations of) individual
letters of the alphabet the meaning of which we are not able to
understand.

All these particulars of the Qur'an were called
"ambiguous" (in the Qur'an itself). Those who followed them were
censured, as indicated in the verse: "It is He who revealed the Book to
you. It contains unambiguous verses that are the mother of the Book, and
other verses that are ambiguous. Those who are inclined in their hearts
toward deviation follow that which is ambiguous in the Qur'an, because
they desire trouble, and they desire to interpret it. But only God knows
how to interpret it. Those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say, 'We
believe in it. It is all from our Lord.' Only those who have a heart
remember." 370

The early Muslim scholars from among the men around
Muhammad and the men of the second generation understood this verse to
mean that the "unambiguous (verses)" are those that are clear and
definite. The jurists, therefore, define "unambiguous" in their
terminology as "clear in meaning."

Concerning the "ambiguous (verses)," people have
different notions. It has been said that they are (verses) requiring
study and interpretation in order to establish their correct meaning,
because they are in contradiction with other verses or with logic.
Therefore, their meaning is obscure and "ambiguous." In this sense, Ibn
'Abbas said: "One must believe in the 'ambiguous (verses),' but one need
not act in accordance with them." 371Mujahid 372and 'Ikrimah 373said: "Everything,
with the exception of (clearly) unambiguous verses and narrative
passages, is ambiguous." This statement was accepted by Judge Abu Bakr
(al-Baqillani) and by the Imam al-Haramayn. Ath-Thawri,374
ash-Sha'bi,375 and a number of early Muslim scholars said: "
'Ambiguous' is what cannot be known, such as the conditions of the Hour,
the dates of the warning signs, and the letters at the beginning of
certain surahs."

The phrase "Mother of the Book," in the verse quoted,
means "the largest and most prominent part of (the Book)," whereas the
"ambiguous (verses)" constitute the smallest part of it, and they have
no meaning except with reference to the unambiguous (verses).376(The verse,) then, censures those who follow the "ambiguous
(verses)" and interpret them or give them a meaning they do not have in
the Arabic language which the Qur'an addresses us in. The verse calls
those persons "deviators" - that is, people who turn away from the truth
- unbelievers, heretics, stupid innovators. The verse says that they act
so in order to cause trouble - that is, polytheism and confusion among
the believers - or in order to be able to interpret the (ambiguous
verses) to suit their desires and to use (their interpretations) as a
model for their innovations.

God then informs (us in the verse quoted) that He has
reserved the interpretation of the (ambiguous verses) exclusively to
Himself. Nobody knows their interpretation, save only Him. He says: "But
only God knows how to interpret them."

The verse then praises scholars for simply believing in
the (ambiguous verses). It says: "Those who are firmly rooted in
knowledge say, 'We believe in them.' " The early Muslims considered this
statement as the beginning of a new sentence. They did not consider it
to be coupled (with the preceding statement, in which case it would mean
". . . Only God knows how to interpret them, and so do those who are
firmly rooted in knowledge, who say ..."). 377Belief in something not known deserves greater praise (than belief
in something visible). Now, assuming that the two sentences are to be
coupled with each other, we would have belief in something visible,
because (this interpretation) implies that (the scholars) know the
interpretation, and that it is not something unknown.

This is confirmed by the continuation of the verse, "It
is all from our Lord." That shows that human beings do not know the
interpretation of the (ambiguous verses). For the words of the language
present to the understanding only those meanings given them by the
Arabs. Thus, in cases where it is impossible to relate a certain (piece
of) informa­tion to the (person) who gives it, we do not know what the
words mean. When such information comes to us from God, we leave the
knowledge of it to Him and do not bother to find out what it might mean.
It would not be possible for us anyhow. 'A'ishah said: "If you see those
who dispute about
the Qur'an, they are the ones whom God meant (in the verse quoted) -beware of them!" 378

This was the opinion of the early Muslims concerning the
"ambiguous verses" (of the Qur'an). The traditions contain similarly
(ambiguous) expressions which were considered by them in the same light,
because the source is one and the same.

Now that the different kinds of "ambiguous" statements
have been established by our remarks, let us return to the differences
of opinion regarding them found among people (scholars).

The statements that people consider "ambiguous" and that
have reference to the Hour and its conditions, to the dates of the
warning signs, to the number of the guardians of Hell, 379
and similar things, hardly are "ambiguous" statements. They contain no
equivocal 380expression or anything else (that may properly
be considered ambiguous). They simply (refer to) dates of events, the
knowledge of which God has reserved exclusively to Himself, as expressly
stated in His Book and through His Prophet. God says: "The knowledge of
them is with God." 381It is strange that these things could
ever have been counted among the "ambiguous" statements.

The (combinations of) individual letters at the beginning
of certain surahs (al-huruf al-muqatta'ah)are, in matter of fact, letters of the
alphabet. It is not improbable that they are intended (merely as
meaningless letters of the alphabet). Az-Zamakhshari says: "They
indicate the wide sweep of the inimitability of the Qur'an. The revealed
Qur'an is composed of (letters). Anybody could use them, but since their
compo­sition (in the Qur'an), there is a difference in their
significance (and they have acquired a superior, divine quality)." 382 Abandonment of the point of view which implies that (these
Quranic hetters) do in fact indicate (just meaningless letters), would
be justified only on the strength of sound tradition. Thus, it is said
that taha is an
appellation consisting of tahir "pure" and hath "guide," and so on.383 But it is difficult to have a sound
tradition. In this sense, the letters might be (called) "ambiguous."

The ambiguity in statements concerning the revelation,
angels, the spirit, and jinn, results from obscurity in the real meaning
of (those terms). They are not commonly accepted (terms). Therefore,
they are ambiguous. Some people have added (to these things) all related
matters, such as the conditions of Resurrection, Paradise, Hell, the
Antichrist, the disturbances (preceding the Last Day), the conditions
(governing it), and anything that is contrary to familiar custom. They
may be right. However, the great mass (of scholars), especially the
speculative theologians, do not agree to that. They have determined the
significance of those (terms), as we notice, in their works.

Thus, the only ambiguous statements remaining are those
concerning the attributes that God has attributed to Himself in His Book
and through His Prophet, the plain meaning of which would seem to
suggest a deficiency or weakness on the part of God.

After the early Muslims whose opinions (on the subject)
we have already clarified, there were differences of opinion among the
people concerning these plain statements. There was discussion.
Innovations came to affect dogmatic beliefs. Let us explain those
opinions and give preference to the sound ones (among them) as against
the corrupt ones. I say -and only God can give me success.

It should be known that God described Himself to us in
His Book as knowing, powerful, having volition, living, hearing, seeing,
speaking, majestic, noble, generous, beneficent, strong, and great. He
also established with regard to Himself that He had hands, eyes, a face,
a foot, a leg, 384and other attributes. Some of them imply
true divinity, such as knowledge, power, volition, as well as life,
which is a condition for all of them. Others are attributes of
perfection, such as hearing, vision, and speech.
Others, again, seem to suggest deficiency, such as
sitting, descending, and coming, as well as face, hands, and eyes, which
are attributes of created things. The 385 Lawgiver (Muhammad)
then informed (us) that we shall see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection
like the moon on a night when the moon is full, and shall not suffer any
harm in seeing
Him, as is established in sound tradition (the Sahih).386The early Muslims, the men around Muhammad
and the men of the second generation, affirmed God's (possession of) the
attributes of divinity and perfection. They left to Him (the question of
attributes) that seem to suggest deficiency, and did not say anything as
to what they might mean. Later on, people held divergent opinions.

The Mu'tazilah came and affirmed those attributes as
abstract data of the mind but did not assume the existence of a (divine)
attribute persisting in the (divine) essence. This they called
"declaration of the oneness of God" (tawhid).

Then, they considered man the creator of his own actions,
and that the latter have nothing to do with the divine power, especially
not man's evil actions and sins, since a wise (Deity) would find it
impossible to do them.

They also considered it God's duty to observe what is
best for mankind. This they called (divine) justice ('adl). Originally,
they had denied predestination. They had maintained that everything
starts through knowledge which comes into being (in each particular
instance), as well as through power and volition which likewise (come
into being). This is mentioned in (the sound tradition of) the Sahih,387and 'Abdallah b. 'Umar refused to have anything to do with Ma'bad
al­Juhani 388and his companions who held those opinions. The
denial of predestination was taken up by the Mu'tazilah Wasil b. 'Ata al-Ghazzal,389 the pupil of al-Hasan
al-Basri, at the time of 'Abd-al-Malik b. Marwan, and eventually by
Mu'ammar as-Sullami.390 The Mu'tazilah, then, retracted their
former opinion in this respect.

One of the Mu'tazilah was Abul-Hudhayl al-'Allaf.391
He was the chief of the Mu'tazilah. He had learned the Mu'tazilah
approach from 'Uthman b. Khalid at-Tawil,392 who had it from
Wasil. He was one of those who denied predestination. He followed the
opinions of the philosophers in denying the existential attributes,
because the philosophical opinions made their appearance at that time.

Then came Ibrahim an-Nazzam.393 He professed
(belief in) predestination, and (the Mu'tazilah) followed him. He
studied the philosophical works. He strictly denied the (existence of
the divine) attributes and firmly established the basic (dogmas) of
Mu'tazilism. Then came al-Jahiz,394 al-Ka'bi,395
and the Jubba'iyah.396 Their approach was called "the science
of speculative theology." (This name, which, literally, means "science
of speech," or "talk," was chosen) either because the school implied
argumentation and disputation, which is what might be called talk,
or because it originated from denial of the
attribute of speech .397Therefore, ash-Shafi'i used to say: "They
deserve to be beaten with palm rods and to be led around (in public)."

Those men firmly established the Mu'tazilah school. They
confirmed part of it and rejected (other parts). Eventually, Abul-Hasan
al-Ash'ari 398appeared. He disputed (the opinions of)
certain Mu'tazilah shaykhs concerning the prob­lems of (God's concern for human)
welfare and what is best for man. He abolished Mu'tazilism. He followed
the opinions of 'Abdallah b. Sa'id b. Kullab,399 Abul-'Abbas
al-Qalanisi,400 and al-Harith b. Asad al-Muhasibi, 401 who were followers of the ancient Muslims according 402to the orthodox approach. He strengthened the
statements they had made 403with speculative theological
arguments. He affirmed the existence of knowledge, power, volition, and
life, as attributes persisting in the essence of God. (These attributes)
are necessary for the argument of mutual antagonism, 404and
they establish the correctness of prophetical miracles.

It also was (Ash'arite) doctrine to affirm the existence
of (the divine attributes of) speech, hearing, and vision. On the
surface, (these attributes) seem to suggest deficiency, (as they seem to
be connected) with corporeal voice and corporeal letter (sound).
However, among the Arabs, speech has another meaning, different from
letter (sound) and voice, namely, "that which goes around in the soul" (khalad).405Speech in it is a reality, in
contradistinction to the first (kind of speech). They ascribed such
(eternal speech) to God. Thus, the suggestion of deficiency was
eliminated. They affirmed the attribute of (speech) as one that is
primeval and of general application, as is the case with the other
attributes. The Qur'an, thus, became a term with a double meaning. It is
primeval and persisting in the essence of God. This is essential speech.
But it is (also) created, in as much as it consists of combinations of
letters (sounds) produced in the recital (of the Qur'an) by (human)
voices. When it is called primeval, the first thing is meant. When it is
called recitable or audible, this refers to its recitation and written
fixation.

His scrupulousness prevented the imam Ahmad (b. Hanbal)
from using the word "created" for (the Qur'an in any way). He had not
heard from the ancient Muslims before his time (anything to the effect)
that he (was to) say 405a that written copies of the Qur'an
are primeval, or that the recitation (of the Qur'an) which is done by
(human) tongues was something primeval, as he could observe with his own
eyes that it was something created. But only his scrupulousness
prevented him from (using the term "created" in those cases). Had he (avoided
using it for any other reason), he would
have denied something that is necessary. He certainly would not have
done that.

Hearing and vision seem to suggest perception by parts of
the body. However, linguistically, they also may mean the perception of
audible and visible things.406
This, then, eliminates the suggestion of deficiency, because here we
have a real linguistic meaning for the two terms (that may be applicable
in connection with the divine attributes).

On the other hand, in the case of the expressions
sitting, coming, descending, face, hands, eyes, and the like, the
(theologians) abandoned their real linguistic meaning, which would
suggest deficiency, anthropomorphically, for metaphoric
interpretation. It is the method of the Arabs to resort to metaphoric
interpretation whenever the real meanings of words present difficulties.
This is done, for instance, in connection with the verse of the Qur'an:
"(A wall) that wantedto collapse," 407and similar cases.
It is a well-known method of the Arabs which is not disapproved of and
constitutes no innovation. (It is true,) the (metaphoric) interpretation
(of the attributes mentioned) is contrary to the opinions of the early
Muslims, who left (the matter to God). However, the theologians were led
to adopt it by the fact that a number of followers of the early Muslims,
namely, the novelty-conscious 408and more recent Hanbalites, erred with regard to
the significance of those attributes. They considered them to be
definite attributes of God of which it is not known "how" they are. With
regard to the statement, "He sat upright upon the throne," 409they say, "We affirm that
He sits, as the word indicates, because we fear to negate Him, but we do
not say how, because we fear anthropomorphism, which is denied in
negative verses such as (these): 'There is nothing like Him'; 410'Praised be
God, beyond the attributes they give (Him)'; 411'God is above what evildoers say'; 412 and 'He did not give birth, and He was not born.' 413

These people do not realize that it comes under the
subject of anthropomorphism for them to affirm the attribute of sitting,
because according to the lexicographers, the word "sitting" implies
being firmly settled in a place, which is something corporeal. The
negation they hate to bring about would (merely) affect the word, and
there is nothing dangerous in that. What is to be avoided is the
negation of divinity. 414
They also hate to assume the imposition of an obligation that (human
beings) are unable to fulfill. 415
This, however, is a delusion, because ambiguous statements have no
bearing upon obligations. Then, they claim that (their opinion) is the
opinion of the early Muslims, who, in fact, held no such opinion. Their
opinion was the one we established at the beginning,416 namely, to leave to God (the question
of) what is meant by the (attributes), and not to say that one
understands them. The (Hanbalites) argue in favor of (God's) sitting,
using Malik's statement, "(The fact of God's) sitting is known, but it
is not known how (God sits)." Malik did not mean that sitting is known
as a definite (attribute) of God. He certainly would not have said such
a thing, because he knew the meaning of "sitting." He merely meant that
(the meaning of) sitting is known linguistically,
and it is something corporeal, but how it takes place - that is, its
reality, since the reality of all attributes concerns the how - is not
known definitely (in connection) with God. 417

These people also argue
in favor of a "place" (for God). They do so
by using the tradition of the black (slave girl). The Prophet asked her:
"Where is God?" She answered: "In heaven." Whereupon (the Prophet) said
(to her owner): "Set her free, for she is a believer." 418Now, the Prophet did not
assume that she was a believer because she affirmed the existence of a
place for God, but because she believed the plain statements in His
Revelation which say that God is in heaven. Thus, she became one of
those "firmly rooted (in knowledge)," 419who believe in ambiguous statements with­out
searching for their meaning. It is definite that one has to disavow the
existence of a "place" for God. This follows from the logical argument
denying (God's) need (for anything), and from the negative evidence that
calls for freeing (God' from attributes), as found, for instance, (in
the verse), "There is nothing like Him," 420 and similar
statements. It also follows from the Qur'anic statement,421
"He, God, is in the heavens and upon earth." 422Nothing that exists can be in two places (at the
same time). Thus, the verse is not a definite indication that God is
located in a certain place, but must mean something else.

These people then extended the interpretation they had
invented to the plain meaning of face, eyes, hands, coming, descending,
and speech with letter (sound) and voice. They assumed that these words
had meanings that were more general than (mere) references to the body.
They declared God free from the corporeal meaning of these attributes.
However, this is something that is not recognized in the language.

All of them followed this course. The orthodox Ash'arites
and the Hanafite theologians shunned them and tried to uproot their
dogmatic belief in this respect. An episode that happened between
Hanafite speculative theologians in Bukhara and the imam Muhammad b.
Isma'il al-Bukhari, 423is well
known.

The anthropomorphists (mujassimah)did something similar in affirming that God has a body
but not one like (ordinary human) bodies. The word "body" is not 424used in connection
with (God) in the Muslim religio-legal tradition, but they were
emboldened in their statement by the fact that they affirmed the
(literal) existence of these plain statements. They did not restrict
themselves to them, 425but went deeper into the
matter and affirmed the corporeality (of God). 426
They assumed something like (what has just been mentioned) concerning
(the meaning of corporeality). They (wanted to) free (God from human
attributes) by the contradictory, nonsensical statement, "A body not
like (ordinary human) bodies." But in the language of the Arabs, body is
something that has depth and is limited. Other interpretations, such as
the one that (body) is something persisting in itself, or is something
composed of the elements, and other things, reflect the technical terms
of speculative theology, through which (the theologians) want to get at
another mean­ing than that indicated by the language. Thus, the
anthropomorphists are more involved (than others) in innovation, and,
indeed, in unbelief. They assume puzzling attributes for God which
suggest deficiency (on His part) and which are not mentioned in either
the Word of God or that of His Prophet.

The differences between the dogmatic opinions of the
early Muslims, the orthodox theologians, the novelty­conscious
(scholars),427
and the innovators among 428the Mu'tazilah, has thus become clear through our remarks.
Among the novelty - conscious (scholars), there are extremists
who are called al-mushabbihah, because they come out openly for anthropomorphism (tashbih).
429The
story goes that one of them even said: "Spare me from speaking about
God's beard and genitals. Rather ask me about anything else, whatever
you please." 430Unless one
tries to explain such (a remark) in their own interest, by assuming that
they want to deal exhaustively with these puzzling plain attributes, and
that they consider all of them in the same light as their authorities,
it is clear unbelief. God help us!

The books of orthodox scholars are full of argumentations
against such innovations and of lengthy refutations of (innovators) with
the help of sound evidence. But we have briefly referred to the
(subject) in a way that will help to distinguish the details and general
outlines of dogmatics. "Praised be God who guided us to this. We would
not be persons who are guided aright, had God not guided us." 431

The plain (words) the evidence for and meaning of which
are obscure - such as revelation, angels, spirit, jinn, Purgatory (barzakh),432the conditions of the Resurrection, the
Antichrist, the disturbances (preceding the Last Day), the conditions
(governing it), and everything else that is difficult to understand or
contrary to custom - are considered by us in the same light as the
Ash'arites, who are orthodox people, considered such details. There is
no ambiguity in it, even though we speak of it as ambiguous. Therefore,
we want to elucidate the matter and speak clearly about it. We say:

It should be known that the world of man is the most
noble and exalted of the worlds of existent things. Even though human
reality is a uniform (element) in (the world), it contains different
levels which differ from each other through conditions peculiar to them,
to such a degree that the realities at each level are different ones.

The 433first level is constituted by
the human world of the body including (man's) external sense perception,
his thinking which is directed toward making a living, and all the other
activities which are granted to him by his present existence.

The second level is constituted by the world of sleep
(dream visions). It involves perception by the imagination. Man lets the
perceptions of his imagination rove in his inward (being). With his
external senses, he perceives some of them as unencumbered by time,
place, or any other condition of the body. He sees them in places where
he (himself) is not. If they are good, they present him with the glad
tidings of pleasure he may expect in this world and the other world as
our truthful (Prophet) promised.

These two levels are shared by all human individuals,
but, as one has seen, they differ as to the way perceptions are attained
in them.

The third level is that of prophecy. It is restricted to
the noblest representatives of humankind by virtue of the fact that God
has distinguished them through the knowledge of Himself and (the
declaration of) His oneness, through His revelation brought to them by
His angels, and through the obligation to achieve the improvement of
mankind with respect to conditions altogether different from the outward
human conditions.

The fourth level is that of death. Here, human
individuals leave their outward life for an(other) existence before the
Resurrection. (That existence) is called Purgatory (barzakh),
434In it, they enjoy bliss or receive punishment,
depending on their activities (while alive). Then, they come to the
Great Resurrection, where they receive the great reward, that is, either
bliss in Paradise or punishment in Hell.

The first two levels are attested by (concrete) intuition
435The third level, that of
prophecy, is attested to by the prophetic miracle (s) and the conditions
peculiar to the prophets. The fourth level is attested to by the divine
revelation given to the prophets (and which speaks) of revivification,436
the conditions of Purgatory (barzakh),and the Resurrection. Moreover, logic requires its
(existence). God has called our attention to that in many verses
concerned with the rising (of the dead). The best argument for the
correctness (of these verses) is that if, apart from their visible
(existence in this world), human individuals had no existence after
death, where they will encounter conditions befitting them, it would
have been something frivolous to create them in the first place. If
death is non-existence, it would mean the return of the individual to
non-existence. In that case, there would have been no sense in creating
them in the first place. It is, however, absurd to assume that the wise
(Deity) would act frivolously. 437

Now, after (the existence of) the four levels has been
established, we want to explain how human perceptions with regard to
those four levels clearly differ. This will reveal the intricacy of (the
problem of) ambiguity.

At the first level, human perceptions are clear and obvious.
God says: "God brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers. You did
not then know anything. And He gave you hearing and vision and hearts."
438With the help of these perceptions, man is able to
master the habits of knowledge, to perfect his human reality, and to
satisfy the requirements of divine worship which
brings him to salvation.

At the second level - that of sleep (dream visions) -
human perceptions are the same as those of external sense perception.
Although the limbs of the body are not used as they are in the waking
state, yet the person who has a (dream) vision ascertains everything
perceived by him in his sleep without any doubt or misgiving. The limbs
of the body are not employed in their ordinary manner.

Concerning the real character of this state, people are
divided into two groups:

The philosophers assume that imaginary pictures are
transmitted by the imagination through the motion of thinking to the
"common sense" which constitutes the connecting link between external
and inner sensual perception. As a result, (these pictures) are
represented as something perceived in the external (world) by all the
senses. The difficulty here is that true visions from God or the angels
are more firmly and definitely perceived than visions of Satanic
imaginations, although the imagination active in both is one and the
same, as the (philosophers) have established.

The second group is that of the speculative theologians.
Their summary statement of the problem is that it is a kind of
perception created by God in (the realm of) the senses, and thus takes
place in the same way that (perception) takes place in the waking state.
This (explanation) is better, even though we are not able to perceive
how it takes place.

Perception in sleep is the clearest evidence (we have)
for the fact that sensual perception operates at the subsequent levels.

It is not known to us 439how sensual
perception takes place on the third level-that of the prophets - but
they themselves have a more than certain (knowledge of) perception
through intuition. The Prophet sees God and the angels. He hears God's
speech from God Himself or from the angels. He sees Paradise, Hell, and
the divine throne and chair. He breaks through the seven heavens in his
ascension.440 He rides al-Buraq 441and
meets the prophets in (the seven heavens) and prays with them. He
perceives all kinds of sensual perceptions, exactly as he perceives them
at the levels of body and sleep, (but) through a kind of necessary
knowledge that God creates for him, and not through ordinary human
perception by means of the limbs of the body.

In this connection, no attention should be paid to
Avicenna's remarks. He brings prophecy down to the level of sleep and
says that the imagination transmits a picture to the "common sense."
442The argument against the (philosophers) in this
connection is (even) stronger in the case of sleep (dream visions). As
we have established, that process of transmission (by the imagination)
is by nature one and the same. In this way, revelation and prophetic
dream vision would in reality be identical as to their certainty and
reality. However, this is not so, as one knows from the dream vision of
the Prophet just six months before the Revelation. The dream was the
beginning of the Revelation and the prelude to it, which shows that, in
reality, it is inferior to (revelation). The same follows from the
process of revelation itself. It was a very difficult matter for the
Prophet, as is stated in sound tradition (the
Sahih).443The Qur'an was (at the be­ginning) revealed to
him in individual verses. Later on, the (long) ninth surah (al-Bara'ah)was revealed to him in one piece during the expedition to
Tabuk while he was riding on his camel. 444If the
revelation had merely been the result of a process whereby thinking
descends to the imagination and from the imagination to the "common
sense," there would not have been any difference between those stages
(of the revelation).

At the fourth level - that of the dead in Purgatory (barzakh),which starts with the grave when they are free
from the body, or during their rising when they reassume a body -the dead do have sensual perceptions. In his grave,
a dead person sees two angels who question him. 445
With the two eyes of his head, he sees the seat he will occupy in either
Paradise or Hell. He sees the persons who attend the burial and hears
what they say, and he hears the tapping of their shoes when they leave
him. He hears the (declaration of the) oneness of God or the affirmation
of the two confessions of faith which they suggest to him,446
and other things. According to sound tradition (the Sahih),the Messenger of God was standing at the well of Badr into which the
dead Qurashite polytheists had been thrown .447When he called them by their names, 'Umar
asked him: "O Messenger of God, are you speaking to those dead bodies?"
Muhammad replied, "By Him in Whose hand my soul rests, you people do not
hear what I am saying any better than they." 448

Furthermore, during the rising of the dead and on the Day
of Resurrection, the dead behold the different grades of bliss in
Paradise and punishment in Hell with their own eyes and ears, exactly as
they used to behold (things) during their life. They see the angels and
they see their Lord. Thus, sound tradition (in the Sahih)
mentions, "You will see your Lord on the Day of Resurrection like the
moon on a night when the moon is full. You will not suffer any harm in
seeing Him." 449

The dead did not have such perceptions while they were
alive. (Still,) they are sensual perceptions like those (they had while
they were alive). They take place in the limbs of the body by means of
(some kind of) necessary knowledge that God creates, as we have stated.
The (explanation for the) secret of it lies in the knowledge that the
human soul grows in the body and through the perceptions of the body.
When it leaves the body in sleep or in death, or when a prophet, in the
state of revelation, changes from human perceptions to angelic ones, the
soul takes its means of perceptions along, but free of the limbs of the
body. With (these means of perception), the soul perceives, on the
(other) level, what­ever perceptions it wants to perceive, but these
perceptions are on a higher plane than those that the soul had while it
was in the body. This was stated by al-Ghazzali, who added that the
human soul has a form that it retains after its separation (from the
body) and that, just like the body's own structure, includes two eyes,
two ears, and all the rest of the limbs of the body serving (man) to
attain perception. 450Iwould say, (however,) that
al-Ghazzali here refers to the habits obtained through using all those
limbs of the body in addition to (mere) perception. 451

When one understands all this, one will realize that
perceptions exist on all four levels. However, they are not everywhere
the same as in the life of this world. They differ in intensity
according to the conditions affecting them. The theologians have
indicated this fact in the summary statement that God creates in (the
senses) a necessary knowledge of the thing perceived, whatever it may
be. By that, they are referring to the same thing we have been
explaining.

This is our brief attempt at classifying the problem of
"ambiguity." To attempt to discuss it more widely, would take us beyond
comprehension. Let us beseech 452God that He may
guide us and that we may learn through His prophets and His Book how to
acknowledge His oneness properly and how to attain salvation.